Add missing article in "writable relationship field" in documentation - #10052
Merged
browniebroke merged 2 commits intoSep 23, 2026
Merged
Conversation
… sentence The sentence read 'required for *writable* relationship field' which drops the article, breaking the grammar. Compare with the same idea spelled out correctly four lines below: 'writable relational fields'. This is the same class of doc-grammar fix that has landed in similar nits on the same docs (e.g. the recent 'Fix allows to X' PRs).
Contributor
|
For learning purpose, I wanted to know how two github users are responsible for this PR ? |
browniebroke
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Small docs grammar fix in
docs/api-guide/relations.md.The sentence:
drops the article before
writable. The fix restores it tofor *a writable* relationship field.Verification
Compare with the very next paragraph in the same section, which spells out the same idea correctly with the plural form:
The singular form on line 462 is the only one missing the article. No code change, no behaviour change; docs-only 1-character diff.
Why this is a good first PR
allows to create/updateinserializers.mdandallows to chooseinpagination.md)